DOCSLIB.ORG

Balkan Tarihi (250-1453)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Balkan Tarihi (250-1453) BALKAN TARİHİ (250-1453) TARİH LİSANS PROGRAMI PROF. DR. BİRSEL KÜÇÜKSİPAHİOĞLU İSTANBUL ÜNİVERSİTESİ AÇIK VE UZAKTAN EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ İSTANBUL ÜNİVERSİTESİ AÇIK VE UZAKTAN EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ TARİH LİSANS PROGRAMI BALKAN TARİHİ (250-1453) Prof. Dr. Birsel Küçüksipahioğlu Yazar Notu Elinizdeki bu eser, İstanbul Üniversitesi Açık ve Uzaktan Eğitim Fakültesi’nde okutulmak için hazırlanmış bir ders notu niteliğindedir. ÖNSÖZ Balkan Tarihi (250-1453) dersi, Bizans İmparatorluğu döneminde Balkanların genel durumu, yaşanan siyasi gelişmeler ve imparatorluğun bu gelişmeler karşısında aldığı tedbir, uygulama ve düzenlemeleri içermektedir. İmparatorluğun, özellikle Hunlardan başlayarak Bulgar, Avar, Peçenek, Kuman ve Osmanlı Türkleriyle uzun süreci kapsayan mücadelesinin ayrıntılı olarak anlatılmaya çalışıldığı bu çalışmada Slavlar ile diğer yabancı ve bölgesel güçlere de yer verilmektedir. Balkanların coğrafi yapısı ile Roma İmparatorluğu döneminin özet olarak verilmesinin ardından Doğu Roma veya Bizans İmparatorluğu döneminde Balkanların anlatıldığı on dört bölümden oluşan çalışmanın tarihe ilgi duyan herkese faydalı olması düşünülmektedir. I İÇİNDEKİLER ÖNSÖZ ........................................................................................................................................ I İÇİNDEKİLER .......................................................................................................................... II KISALTMALAR ..................................................................................................................... IV YAZAR NOTU ......................................................................................................................... V 1.DOĞU ROMA İMPARATORLUĞU ve BALKANLAR BÖLGESİNE GENEL BİR BAKIŞ ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1.Balkanların Coğrafi ve Stratejik Özelliği ............................................................................. 7 1.2. Roma İmparatorluğu Döneminde Balkanlar ....................................................................... 9 1.3. İmparator Büyük Konstantinos ve Faaliyetleri ................................................................. 12 1.4. Balkanlarda Önemli Şehirler ............................................................................................. 14 2. BÜYÜK KONSTANTİNOS ve HALEFLERİ DÖNEMİNDE BALKANLAR ................. 22 2.1. Büyük Konstantinos’un Oğulları Döneminde Balkanlar .................................................. 28 2.2. İmparator Iulianus ve Faaliyetleri ..................................................................................... 29 2.3.İmparator Valentianus ve Valens Döneminde Balkanlar ................................................... 30 2.4. İmparator I. Theodosios ve Faaliyetleri ............................................................................ 32 2.5. Balkanlarda Toplanan Konsiller ........................................................................................ 33 3. V. YÜZYILDA BALKANLARIN DURUMU ve İMPARATORLUĞUN BÖLGEYİ DÜZENLEME ÇALIŞMALARI ............................................................................................. 41 3.1. İmparator Arkadios ve Gotlar ........................................................................................... 47 3.2. İmparator II. Theodosios ve Hunlar .................................................................................. 48 3.3. Attila Sonrası Hunlar ve Balkanlar ................................................................................... 51 4.İMPARATORLUĞUN VI. YÜZYILDA BALKANLARDAKİ MÜCADELESİ ............... 60 4.1 İmparatorluk ve Bulgarlar .................................................................................................. 66 4.2. İmparatorluk ve Slavlar ..................................................................................................... 67 4.3. Balkanlarda Avarlar .......................................................................................................... 68 5.VII. YÜZYIL ve İMPARATORLUĞUN BALKAN POLİTİKASI .................................... 78 5.1.İmparator Phokas, Herakleios ve Konstans Döneminde Balkanlar ................................... 84 6.İMPARATOR IV. KONSTANTİNOS ve HALEFLERİ DÖNEMİNDE BALKANLAR ... 94 6.1.İmparator IV. Konstantinos Zamanında Balkanlar .......................................................... 100 II 6.2. İmparator II. Iustinianos ve Halefleri Döneminde Balkanlar .......................................... 101 7. ANKHİALOS SAVAŞI ve BALKANLAR ....................................................................... 110 7.1. İmparator V. Konstantinos ve Balkanlar ......................................................................... 116 7.2. İmparator VI. Konstantinos ve Halefleri Döneminde Balkanlar ..................................... 118 8. İMPARATOR V. LEON SONRASINDA BALKANLAR ............................................... 127 8.1. Krum Sonrası Bulgarlar .................................................................................................. 133 8.2. İmparator II. Mikhail Zamanında Balkanlar ................................................................... 133 8.3. İmparator Theophilos ve Halefleri Döneminde Balkanlar .............................................. 134 9.İMPARATOR VI. LEON SONRASI BALKANLAR ........................................................ 145 9.1.Bizans İmparatorluğu ve Symeon .................................................................................... 151 9.2.İmparator II. Nikephoros ve Balkanlar ............................................................................ 152 9.3. İmparator II. Basileios ve Balkanlar ............................................................................... 154 10.İMPARATOR IV. MİKHAİL ve HALEFLERİ DÖNEMİNDE BALKANLAR ............ 163 10.1.İmparator II. Basileios’tan Sonra Balkanlar ................................................................... 169 10.2. İmparator IX.Konstantinos Monomakhos Döneminde Balkanlar ................................. 170 10.3. İmparator I. Isaakios Komnenos ve X. Konstantinos Dukas Zamanında Balkanlar ..... 172 10.4. İmparator VII. Mikhail Döneminde Balkanlar .............................................................. 173 11. İMPARATOR I. ALEKSİOS KOMNENOS DÖNEMİNDE BALKANLAR ................ 182 11.1.İmparator I.Aleksios Komnenos ve Balkanlar ............................................................... 188 11.2.İmparator Aleksios ve Haçlılar ...................................................................................... 191 12.İMPARATOR IOANNES KOMNENOS ve MANUEL KOMNENOS DÖNEMİNDE BALKANLAR ....................................................................................................................... 201 12.1. İmparator Ioannes Komnenos ve Balkanlar .................................................................. 207 12.2. İmparator Manuel Zamanında Balkanlar ...................................................................... 209 13. İMPARATOR MANUEL KOMNENOS SONRASI DÖNEMDE BALKANLAR ........ 218 13.1.İmparator Andronikos Komnenos ve Halefleri Döneminde Balkanlar .......................... 224 13.2.Dördüncü Haçlı Seferi ve İmparatorluğa Etkisi ............................................................. 228 14.DÖRDÜNCÜ HAÇLI SEFERİ SONRASI BALKANLAR ............................................. 237 14.1.Dördüncü Haçlı Seferi Sonrası İmparatorluk ve Balkanlar ........................................... 243 KAYNAKÇA ......................................................................................................................... 258 III KISALTMALAR ●BF Byzantinische Forschungen ● bsk baskı ●BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift ● C, c Cilt ● DİA Türkiye Diyânet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi ● ed editör ●İng İngilizce ● MÖ Milattan Önce •MS Milattan Sonra ●nşr neşreden ● s sayfa ●sy sayı ●trc tercüme ●vb ve benzeri ●vs vesaire ●yay yayımlayan ●yy yüzyıl IV YAZAR NOTU Balkan Tarihi (250-1453) dersi, önsözde de belirtildiği üzere Roma İmparatorluğu döneminde Balkanların özet olarak anlatıldığı ilk bölümden sonra ayrıntılı olarak Bizans İmparatorluğu zamanında Balkanların durumu hakkında bilgi vermeyi amaçlamaktadır. V 1.DOĞU ROMA İMPARATORLUĞU ve BALKANLAR BÖLGESİNE GENEL BİR BAKIŞ 1 Bu Bölümde Neler Öğreneceğiz? 1.1. Balkanların Coğrafi ve Stratejik Özelliği 1.2. Roma İmparatorluğu Döneminde Balkanlar 1.3. İmparator Büyük Konstantinos ve Faaliyetleri 1.4. Balkanlarda Önemli Şehirler 2 Bölüm Hakkında İlgi Oluşturan Sorular 1-Balkanlarda VI. Yüzyılda görülen iklim değişikliğinin etkileri neler olmuştur? 2-Balkanlarda bulunan geçitlerin bölge için önemi nedir? 3-İmparator Diocletianus’un uyguladığı tetrarkhia yönetiminin Balkanlara etkisi nasıl olmuştur? 3 Bölümde Hedeflenen Kazanımlar ve Kazanım Yöntemleri Konu Kazanım Kazanımın nasıl elde edileceği veya geliştirileceği Balkanların Coğrafi ve Balkan coğrafyası hakkında Tarihi olayların öğrenilmesi Stratejik Özelliği bilgi sahibi olmak ve sürecinde bölgenin bölgenin stratejik öneminin tanınması ve anlaşılması kavranması Roma İmparatorluğu Roma İmparatorluğu Sebep – sonuç ilişkisi kurma Döneminde Balkanlar zamanında Balkanların durumu ve imparatorluğun Kronolojik düşünme bölgedeki düzenleme ve Tarihsel analiz ve yorum uygulamalarını anlayabilmek İmparator Büyük İmparator Büyük Sebep – sonuç ilişkisi kurma Konstantinos ve Faaliyetleri Konstantinos’un müstakil imparatorluğu öncesi ve Kronolojik düşünme sonrası Balkanlardaki
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Doctoral Dissertation Márton Rózsa Byzantine Second-Tier Élite In
    Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Humanities DOCTORAL DISSERTATION MÁRTON RÓZSA BYZANTINE SECOND-TIER ÉLITE IN THE ‘LONG’ TWELFTH CENTURY Doctoral School of History Head of the doctoral school: Dr. Gábor Erdődy Doctoral Programme of Medieval and Early Modern World History Head of the doctoral programme: Dr. Balázs Nagy Supervisor: Dr. Balázs Nagy Members of the assessment committee: Dr. István Draskóczy, Chair Dr. Gábor Thoroczkay, PhD, Secretary Dr. Floris Bernard, opponent Dr. Andreas Rhoby, opponent Dr. István Baán, member Dr. László Horváth, PhD, member Budapest, 2019 ADATLAP a d o kt ori ért e k e z é s n yit v á n o s s á gr a h a z at al á h o z l. A d o kt ori ért e k e z é s a d at ai A s z et z ő n e v e: Ró z s a ] u í árt o n MT M'f-azonosító: 1 0 0 1 9 2 7 0 A d o kt ori ért e k e z é s c í m e é s al c í m e: B y z a nti n e Second-Tie, Éttt ein t h e 'Lang'Tu,e\th C e nt ur y f) Ol-azonosító: 1 íl. l 5 1 7 6/ E L T E. 2 0 I 9. 0 5 ő A d o kt ori i s k ol a n e v e: Tü,t énele míuclo mányi D ol ú ori { sl ail a A d o kt ori pr o gr í } m n e v e: Köz é p k ori é s kora újkori e gt e í e m e s tört é n eti Doktori Progratn A t é mavezető n e v e ó s tudo mányos fcrkozata: § a g y * B ai ú z s.
    [Show full text]
  • Sind Für Diesen Dreigeteilten Index Ausgewertet Worden. Mittelalterliche Namen Werden Nach Dem Vor- Namen Geordnet (Verweisung Vom Familiennamen)
    INDEX Alle Kapitel bis auf den Katalog (Kapitel 7.2.) sind für diesen dreigeteilten Index ausgewertet worden. Mittelalterliche Namen werden nach dem Vor- namen geordnet (Verweisung vom Familiennamen). Personen und Sachen Abt 155, 158, 161, 163, 165, 166, 169 Anonymer Professor 15, 37, 39, 58, 81, 87, Achilleus Tatios 84, 197 133, 148, 157, 176 Adressant 31, 39, 42 Anonymer protobestiarios 15 Adressat 31, 36, 39, 42, 57, 60 Anonymer protonotarios 15 Adresse 41, 67 Anonymus Marcianus 16, 58, 60, 81, 88, Adrianos Komnenos 106 90, 118, 202 Äbtissin, Klostervorsteherin 99, 163, 181, Anrede, 182, 184, 185, 198 abstrakt 41, 44, 94, 141, 144, 147, 149, Ägypten 35, 123 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 173, 179, 184, Aikaterine, Kaiserin 138 192, 193 Aineias von Gaza 15, 57, 58, 63, 180, 197 Alliteration 72, 77 Ainios → Ephraim Amt 108, 155, 200 Akropolites → Konstantinos annominatio 73 Alcuin 29 Antike 44, 78, 92, 95, 98, 107, 116, Alexander der Große 81 117, 118, 122, 200 Alexandros, Kaiser 139, 140 Berufsbezeichnung107, 110 Alexandros III., Papst 15 Bruder 52, 53, 54, 120, 124, 127, 128, Alexandros von Nikaia 14, 15, 58, 63, 160, 194 101 direkt 40, 42, 57, 59, 70 et passim Alexios I. Komnenos 138, 146 Eigennamen 40, 60, 71 Alexios Aristenos 75, 80, 108, 177, 201 Alexios Giphardos 177 Epanalepsis 76 Alexios, monachos 15 Etymologie 73 Al-Muqtadir 68, 148, 150–152, 173, 200 Familienname 67 Amtsbruder 160 Fehlen 115 Amtskollege 48, 54, 128, 201 Frage 128, 129 Anastasios, Kaiser 38, 130 Frau 67, 119, 170, 178, 180, 181, 182, Anastasios 15, 38 184, 185 Anastasius III., Papst 154, 200 Freund 52 Anchialos → Michael Funktionsbezeichnung 107, 108, 155, Andronikos I.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Thoughts on the Military Capabilities of Alexios I Komnenos: Battles of Dyrrachion (1081) and Dristra (1087)
    Graeco-Latina Brunensia 24 / 2019 / 2 https://doi.org/10.5817/GLB2019-2-10 Some Thoughts on the Military Capabilities of Alexios I Komnenos: Battles of Dyrrachion (1081) and Dristra (1087) Marek Meško (Masaryk University) ČLÁNKY / ARTICLES Abstract Alexios I Komnenos belongs to the most important emperors of the Byzantine history. Yet, in many respects, this period still remains an underdeveloped field of study. This paper attempts to review one of the aspects of his reign, namely his capabilities as a military commander since he owed much of his success in restoring the fortunes of Byzantium to his strong military back- ground. In order to succeed in the final evaluation, most of the relevant military events during Alexios Komnenos’ life and career in which he took personal part will be briefly reviewed and taken into consideration. Particular cases where Alexios Komnenos was allegedly responsible for a serious military defeat will be discussed in more detail (e.g. battle of Dyrrachion in 1081 and battle of Dristra in 1087) in order to assess whether it was solely Alexios Komnenos’ re- sponsibility, or whether the causes of defeat were not result of his faulty decision-making as a military commander. Keywords Byzantine Empire; Alexios Komnenos; military; battles; medieval warfare 143 Marek Meško Some Thoughts on the Military Capabilities of Alexios I Komnenos: Battles of Dyrrachion (1081) … Introduction The Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118) is a very well-known charac- ter of the Byzantine history. At the same time, he is famous as the emperor who sat on the throne of Byzantium when the crusaders of the first crusade headed east to liber- ate Jerusalem.
    [Show full text]
  • Byzantina Symmeikta
    Byzantina Symmeikta Vol. 17, 2005 «The Sons of Hagar» in Archbishop Eustathios᾽ The Capture of Thessaloniki: Some Evidence Concerning Late Twelfth Century Byzantine-Turkish Relations MERIANOS Gerasimos https://doi.org/10.12681/byzsym.923 Copyright © 2014 Gerasimos MERIANOS To cite this article: MERIANOS, G. (2008). «The Sons of Hagar» in Archbishop Eustathios᾽ The Capture of Thessaloniki: Some Evidence Concerning Late Twelfth Century Byzantine-Turkish Relations. Byzantina Symmeikta, 17, 213-221. doi:https://doi.org/10.12681/byzsym.923 http://epublishing.ekt.gr | e-Publisher: EKT | Downloaded at 27/09/2021 07:50:37 | GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS «THE SONS OF HAGAR» IN ARCHBISHOP EUSTATHIOS' THE CAPTURE OF THESSALONIKF. SOME EVIDENCE CONCERNING LATE TWELFTH CENTURY BYZANTINE-TURKISH RELATIONS* The Capture of Thessaloniki (Ευσταθίου τοΰ Θεσσαλονίκης συγγραφή της είθε υστέ­ ρας κατ' αυτήν αλώσεως...)1, Eustathios' account of the conquest of his archbishopric2 by the Normans of Sicily (1185), constitutes a significant historical source for the period 1180-1185, which supplements the corresponding chapters from Niketas Choniates' History (Χρονική Διήγησις)3. In this work Eustathios depicts not only the capture and occupation of his see, but he also offers valuable information about the events prior to the disaster. Therefore, it is not surprising that in The Capture of Thessaloniki there are some references concerning the Seljuk Turks, which illustrate certain aspects of the later * Special thanks are due to Taxiarchis Kolias (Professor, University of Athens, and Director of the Institute for Byzantine Research [IBR] / National Hellenic Research Foundation [NHRF]) and to Nikolaos Moschonas (Research Professor, IBR / NHRF) for their useful comments and suggestions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Opposition to Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118)
    The Political Opposition to Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118) Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung des Akademischen Grades eines Dr. phil., vorgelegt dem Fachbereich 07 Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz von João Vicente de Medeiros Publio Dias aus São Paulo, Brasilien 2020 Dekan: 1. Gutachter: 2. Gutachter: Tag des Prüfungskolloquiums: 18. Juli 2018 Dedicado a Dai Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 1 Note on translation and transliteration .................................................................................. 2 i. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3 i.i. Bibliographic Review ...................................................................................................... 4 i.ii Conceptual and Theoretical Issues on Political Opposition in Byzantium ...................... 7 i.iii Sources .......................................................................................................................... 18 i.iii.i Material for History of Nikephoros Bryennios .......................................................... 24 i.iii.ii The Alexiad of Anna Komnene ................................................................................. 26 i.iii.iii The Epitome Historion of Ioannes Zonaras .............................................................. 30 i.iii.iv The Chronike
    [Show full text]
  • From Huns Into Persians: the Projected Identity of the Turks in the Byzantine Rhetoric of Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries
    From Huns into Persians: The Projected Identity of the Turks in the Byzantine Rhetoric of Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries By Roman Shliakhtin Supervisor: Daniel Ziemann, Niels Gaul Submitted to the Medieval Studies Department Central European University, Budapest In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Medieval Studies CEU eTD Collection Budapest 2016 1 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor professor Niels Gaul who fostered my talents and supported me. His care and trust helped me to overcome many obstacles I met on the way and stimulated me to challenge my own limits and systematize my results. I express gratitude to my supervisor Daniel Ziemann and to the pre-defense committee members Volker Menze and Tijana Krstic. I also thank my first teacher Rustam Shukurov who encouraged me to start the project in 2007 and keeps supporting me with his friendship and advice up to the present day. I thank my colleagues and friends Mariana Bodnaruk, Marijana Vukovic, Andras Kraft and Divna Manolova who read parts of this dissertation at the later stage. I express my gratitude to my mentor and the former head of the Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Studies Program, professor Michael Maas who commented on the methodology of the project. I also thank Head of the PhD Program Alice Choyke and PhD Coordinator Csilla Dobos for their patience and help. I express my appreciation to the following specialists for sharing their expertise and providing feedback on my project: Mary Cunningham, Leslie Brubaker, Michael Jeffreys, Elizabeth Jeffreys, Michael Angold, Mark Whittow, Ingella Nilsson, Ruth Macrides and Paul Magdalino.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing the Methods of Andronikos I and Alexios I Komnenos of Constructing Imperial Power*
    Studia Ceranea 9, 2019, p. 301–317 ISSN: 2084-140X DOI: 10.18778/2084-140X.09.16 e-ISSN: 2449-8378 Paweł Lachowicz (Wrocław) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2536-5220 The Family Strategy for Purple – Comparing the Methods of Andronikos I and Alexios I Komnenos of Constructing Imperial Power* hrough accomplishing the coup d’etat in 1081, Alexios Komnenos and his T whole family turned out to be victorious, in almost thirty years of contro- versy over the legacy of the extinct Macedonian dynasty. This event also means the definitive victory of the aristocracy in the struggle for power in the Empire1. During his long 37-year reign, Alexios I drastically changed the state, carrying out reforms that inseparably connected the Komnenian dynasty with the appara- tus of power2. His system of hierarchical dignities granted according to the degree of kinship contributed to the ongoing process of aristocratization of the Byzan- tine society and made it possible to create a faction consisting of many families. This enabled stabilization of the internal situation of the state, until the death of his grandson, Manuel I Komnenos3. Almost a hundred years later, in 1182, a grandson of Alexios I, Andronikos Komnenos, made an attempt to take over the crown, taking advantage of the peri- od of weakening of the imperial power in the hands of the regents. The juvenile Alexios II, the only legitimate son of Manuel I Komnenos, was under the influ- ence of his mother, empress Mary of Antioch, and her lover, protosebastos Alexios Komnenos. Setting off from Oinaion in Paphlagonia, Andronikos carried out the first successful coup since the establishment of the Komnenoi.
    [Show full text]
  • Usurper Narratives and Power: Pretexts, Legacies, and Aspects of Legitimation in Byzantium (963-1204)
    USURPER NARRATIVES AND POWER: PRETEXTS, LEGACIES, AND ASPECTS OF LEGITIMATION IN BYZANTIUM (963-1204) By ALISTAIR JAMES DAVIDSON A dissertation submitted to the University of Birmingham in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF RESEARCH in Byzantine Studies Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies Classics, Ancient History and Archaeology College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham September 2013 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Contents INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 Historical background ..................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction to Sources .................................................................................................................. 5 USURPER NARRATIVES: PRETEXTS AND LEGACIES..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Power and Usurpation in Byzantium: Some Aspects of Communication, Legitimacy, and Moral Authority
    ‘THE GLORY OF RULING MAKES ALL THINGS PERMISSIBLE’: POWER AND USURPATION IN BYZANTIUM: SOME ASPECTS OF COMMUNICATION, LEGITIMACY, AND MORAL AUTHORITY By ALISTAIR JAMES DAVIDSON A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman, and Modern Greek Studies Classics, Ancient History and Archaeology College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham September 2017 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT In Byzantium, usurpation was made possible by the conflict between hereditary-dynastic and meritocratic-republican theories of rulership. Legitimacy was founded upon subjective notions of idealized moral-behavioural norms drawn from the imperial virtues and Christian ideology. Authority could be challenged when it was perceived to deviate from these norms. Investitures transformed a usurper from a private individual to an emperor on the basis of ratification by popular consent. The historic ritual of reluctance allowed emperors to present themselves as ‘moral ideals’ at the moment of proclamation, ridding them of blame for a usurpation. Guilt and sin were inevitable byproducts of usurpation, but imperial repentance facilitated an expiation and legitimized imperial authority in relation to moral ideals.
    [Show full text]
  • Transformation and Composition of the Komnenos “Clan” (1081–1200) – a Statistical Approach
    Studia Ceranea 10, 2020, p. 141–173 ISSN: 2084-140X DOI: 10.18778/2084-140X.10.07 e-ISSN: 2449-8378 Paweł Lachowicz (Wrocław) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2536-5220 Power and Aristocracy – Transformation and Composition of the Komnenos “Clan” (1081–1200) – A Statistical Approach lexios I Komnenos proved to be the creator of one of the most durable sys- A tems of power in the history of the Byzantine Empire. Acting in the face of problems plaguing the state in the second half of the 11th century, Alexios resorted to solutions specific to the environment of the provincial aristocracy to which he belonged. He used his family to support his power. In the 9th century, the Byzantine aristocracy began to form groups for the protection of its interests1. Such groups are often referred to as “clans”2. They were structures made up of aris- tocrats of one or more families connected through the bonds of kinship. Their purpose was to protect its common interests. The family in the Byzantine culture was strictly protected by law. Raising a hand on your own relative was considered absolutely unacceptable and was considered as crime. That’s why building a net- work of alliances through marriages was a common strategy among the Byzantine aristocracy3. Alexios I Komnenos, as a usurper taking over power in a very unfa- vourable period, full of pretenders to the throne, had to stabilize his and his fam- ily’s position on the throne. He surrounded himself with allied aristocratic families 1 J.-C. Cheynet, Klasy kierujące cesarstwem, [in:] Świat Bizancjum, vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Die Byzantinischen Kaiser
    Die Byzantinischen Kaiser Genealogie und Herrschaft Byzantinisches Reich: Byzantinischer Kaisertitel „Augustus„ seit 867 „Basileus“ Imperator Kaiserin „Augusta„ Theodosius - Dynastie Kaiser Flavius Arkadius, * 377 in Spanien. Sohn von Kaiser Theodosius I. von Byzanz u. Aelia Arkadius Flaccilla. Bruder des Weströmischen Kaisers Honorius. Spanier 395 - 408 * 377 Imperator Caesar Flavius Arcadius Augustus † 1. 5. 408 Nach dem Tode seines Vaters endgültige Reichsteilung in Ost- u. Westreich. Mitkaiser im Osten Roms seit 19. Januar 383. Kaiser von Byzanz seit 17. Januar 395 - 1. Oströmischer Kaiser - Geistig zurückgeblieben u. abhängig von seinen Ratgebern. Er war der hilfloseste Kaiser auf dem byzantinischen Thron. Erließ mehrere Gesetze gegen Häresien. Kaiser Arkadius Seine Ratgeber: Rufinus, Prätorianerpräfekt, vermutlich der Initiator des Massakers in Thessalonike von 390, der selbst den Kaiserthron erstrebte und versuchte seine Tochter mit Arkadius zu vermählen. Unbeliebt bei der Armee, † am 27. November 396, während einer Parade ermordet. Eutropius, ehemaliger Sklave, entmannter Prostituierter, Haushofmeister, hintertrieb das Vorhaben des Rufinus (den Kaiser mit dessen Tochter zu vermählen) und konnte während dessen Abwesenheit die Verlobung mit Eudoxia herbeiführen. 399 zum Konsul erhoben, † 400 wegen Fehlentscheidungen hingerichtet. Anthemius, Prätorianerpräfekt. Gute Beziehungen zum Sassanidenreich. Usurpator: Gainas (383-388). Feldherr, ließ vermutlich Rufinus ermorden und verlangte vom Kaiser die Überlieferung des Eutropius. Er unternahm eine Palastrevolte und wurde schließlich vom kaisertreuen Heer geschlagen, fiel dem Hunnenkönig Uldin in die Hände und wurde im Jahr 400 enthauptet. Ehe am 27. April 395 mit der Gotin Aelia Eudoxia I., * um 375, † am 6. Oktober 404 nach einer Fehlgeburt, Tochter des heidnischen Rhetors Leontios Bautogast von Athen, als welche sie Athenais hieß. Seit 400 Augusta.
    [Show full text]
  • Heroes and Romans in Twelfth-Century Byzantium: the Material for History of Nikephoros Bryennios Leonora Neville Frontmatter More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-00945-5 - Heroes and Romans in Twelfth-Century Byzantium: The Material for History of Nikephoros Bryennios Leonora Neville Frontmatter More information HEROES AND ROMANS IN TWELFTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM Nikephoros Bryennios’s history of the Byzantine Empire in the 1070s is a story of civil war and aristocratic rebellion in the midst of the Turkish conquest of Anatolia. Commonly remembered as the passive and unambitious husband of princess Anna Komnene (author of the Alexiad), Bryennios is revealed as a skilled author whose history draws on cultural memories of classical Roman honor and proper masculinity to evaluate the politicians of the 1070s and, by impli- cation, exhort his twelfth-century contemporaries to honorable behavior. Bryennios’s story valorizes the memory of his grandfather and other honorable, but failed, generals of the eleventh century while subtly portraying the victorious Alexios Komnenos as un-Roman. This reading of the Material for History sheds new light on twelfth- century Byzantine culture and politics, especially the contested acces- sion of John Komnenos, the relationship between Bryennios’s history and the Alexiad, and the function of cultural memories of Roman honor in Byzantium. leonora neville holds the John W. and Jeanne M. Rowe Profes- sorship in Byzantine History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and is the author of Authority in Byzantine Provincial Society: 950–1100 (2004). © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press
    [Show full text]